Perceptions of British Columbia residents and their willingness to pay for medication management services provided by pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Across Canada, pharmacists have expanded their scope of practice by performing medication management (MM) services. However, little is currently known about the opinions and attitudes of patients and the general population toward MM services. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey, including a best-worst scaling task, was designed to understand the general public's opinions, preferences and willingness-to-pay with respect to MM services in British Columbia. RESULTS: Of 977 individuals contacted, 819 responded to the questionnaire (84% response rate). The mean age was 45 years (standard deviation [SD] 16 years), and 37% were male. Overall, 93% of respondents felt that the medication advice from their pharmacist resulted in improvement in patient outcomes and/or medication use. This was also selected as the "best" attribute of MM, while other preferred attributes of MM included being able to obtain an appointment with the pharmacist on the same day or via walk-in, improved patient-physician relationships and MM sessions able to be completed in 15 minutes with the pharmacist. The average willingness to pay for MM was $24.55 (SD $21.44). Younger males with higher household income and those who had had MM in the past were willing to pay more for MM services out of pocket. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The accessibility of pharmacists was valued highly by respondents who, overall, were supportive of MM services and recognized the potential of pharmacists' involvement in drug therapy management to improve patient outcomes and medication use. Alternative models of funding are worth considering for the sustainability of MM service provision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".